"Obamacare": Debunking The Myths Of Health Insurance Reform

July 30, 2009 5:30 pm ET

As Congress heads home for the August recess, Media Matters Action Network wants to make sure members are armed with the facts regarding the myths about health insurance reform. Each of these statements shares the common bond of both being completely false, and having been spoken by Republican members of Congress during the past week.

I don't want my tax dollars to help provide health
care for an illegal immigrant.

REBUTTAL:

The House bill specifically forbids federal dollars
from going to the health insurance policies of undocumented workers residing in
the United States, saying no federal payments will be allowed to benefit those "who
are not lawfully present in the United States."

House Bill: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens." According to America's Affordable Health Choices
Act of 2009, Page 143, Line 3, Section 246: "No Federal Payment for
Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal
payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not
lawfully present in the United
States." [America's Affordable Health Choices
Act of 2009, accessed 7/22/09

President Obama: Health Care Reform Should Not Cover "Illegal
Immigrants." As reported
by CBS News, "Asked by CBS News' Katie Couric in an exclusive interview whether
illegal immigrants should be covered under a new health care plan, President
Obama responded simply, 'no.'" [CBSNews.com, 7/21/09;
emphasis added]

MYTH: A government-run plan will encourage seniors to choose
an early death.

The President and Congressional Democrats want to cut
health care costs by encouraging America's seniors to end their
lives early and forgo expensive life-extending measures in their twilight
years.

REBUTTAL:

The House bill does include language that offers
senior citizens free counseling meant to answer any possible end-of-life
questions they may have. The counseling
is voluntary and will provide professional, knowledgeable, and compassionate
information to seniors on such issues as will preparation, medical power of
attorney, resuscitation wishes, and other matters.

"Advance Care Planning Consultation"
Would Provide Seniors With Professional Advice On Will Preparation, Power Of
Attorney, And Other Complicated Issues. PolitiFact.com reported: "Sec. 1233 of the
bill, labeled 'Advance Care Planning Consultation' details how the bill would,
for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life
counseling sessions. According to the bill, 'such consultation shall include
the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning,
including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested
people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including
living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by
the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.'"
[PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]

Counseling Is NOT Mandatory. In
regards to the "mandatory" assertion, PolitiFact.com reported: "For his part,
Keyserling said he and outside counsel read the language carefully to make sure
that was not the case. 'Neither of us can come to the conclusion that it's
mandatory.' he said. 'This new consultation is just like all in Medicare: it's
voluntary.' 'The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the
counseling,' said Dau." [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]

Patients Suffer When Their Doctors Are
Not Aware Of Their Wishes. According to CNN: "Discussing end-of-life
care is difficult for everyone involved, but it should be done early on,
doctors say. Many aging parents and
grandparents resist talking about it because of the emotional pain the issue
will cause their younger relatives; and the children who will become
responsible don't want to appear ungrateful or self-serving by mentioning it,
[Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Emory
University] said. Many
doctors don't want to talk about it either, he said. 'There are a lot of my colleagues who don't
bother having that conversation. They just intubate them, and ship them up to
an ICU, and say 'next,'' Kellerman said." [CNN.com, 7/23/09]

Consultation Will Include An Explanation Of
The Patient's Choices. According to the Politico: "The provision states that as part of an advanced care
consultation, an individual and practitioner shall have a consultation that
includes 'an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life
services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and
benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.'"
[Politico, 7/28/09]

Health Care Facilities Have Been Required To
Provide End-Of-Life Information To Patients Since 1990.Politico reported: "The government has
long encouraged medical providers to discuss such life and death issues with
patients. Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act in 1990, requiring health
care agencies, including hospitals and long-term care facilities to give
patients information on state laws regarding advance directives such as a
living will." [Politico, 7/28/09]

Bush Administration Outlined End-Of-Life
Counseling. According to Politico: "In 2003, under the Bush
administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a 20-page
report outlining a five-part process for physicians to discuss end-of-life
care with their patients." [Politico,
7/28/09]

MYTH: The government-run plan will allow taxpayer funds to
pay for abortions.

The passage of health care reform would mandate
abortion coverage in all publicly offered options, thus making taxpayer dollars
available to fund abortions.

REBUTTAL:

Abortion is not mandated in any reform
legislation. Currently, private
insurance companies make their own decisions on whether or not abortion is a
covered procedure. Current reform
efforts will continue in that vein and allow consumers to choose a plan,
through the Exchange, that is provided by a company that is in line with their
own moral decision about abortion.

Abortion Is Not Mandated In The Reform Legislation.
According to Planned Parenthood: "Nothing in any of the current health care
reform bills mandates abortion coverage - or any other type of medical
procedure - in the Exchange. Abortion is not mandated any more than any
other medical procedure in health care reform." [PlannedParenthood.org,
accessed 7/30/09]

A Majority Of Americans Support Some Sort Of
Abortion Coverage. The
Mellman Group found that 66% of Americans support covering abortion under
reform measures and 72% "would feel angry if Congress mandated by law that
abortion would not be covered under a national health care plan." [Mellman
Group Poll via the National Women's Law Center, 7/6/09]

97% Of Planned Parenthood's Services Are Not
Abortion Related. Planned Parenthood provides a variety of
services - 97% of which are not abortion related. According to their 2007 summary report, they
provided 10.9 million services:

MYTH: We don't need an overhaul of health care.

Why do we need to reform health care? I'm happy with
what I have.

REBUTTAL:

Most Americans with health insurance are happy with
the level of service and care they receive, and we don't want to change
that. However, there are millions of
people who can't get health insurance.
And those people cost you, and everyone else with insurance, more
because they often can't pay for the care they do receive. Your premiums go up each year in part to help
cover the cost of those who can't afford to go to the doctor and end up having
to go to the emergency room instead.

Americans Are Suffering Under The Current Health Insurance System. Under the current system, 44,230 Americans
lose their health insurance every week. That number translates to 191,670 a month and
2,300,000 a year. [Families USA, "The
Clock Is Ticking," July 2009]

46 Million Americans Have No Health Insurance. According to the National Coalition for Health Care: "Nearly
46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were
without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available."
[NCHC.org, accessed 6/8/09]

1 Out Of Every 10 American Children Has No Health Insurance. The National Coalition for Health Care stated: "The
number of uninsured children in 2007 was 8.1 million - or 10.7 percent of all
children in the U.S."
[NCHC.org, accessed 6/8/09]

The Majority Of
Americans Want Drastic Health Care Reform This Year. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll
released on July 14, 2009, "56% of Americans in favor and 33% opposed to
Congress' passing major healthcare reform legislation this year." [Gallup.com, 7/14/09]

Currently, Private Health
Insurance Companies Do Not Value Their Customers

BCBS
Retroactively Cancelled Plan After Six-Year-Old's Tumor Surgery. According to the Los Angeles Times,
"when Steve and Leslie Shaeffer's daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with
a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would
cover the bulk of her treatment costs. Instead, almost two years later, the
Murrieta, Calif., couple face more than $60,000 in medical bills and fear the
loss of their dream home...Shortly after Selah's medical bills hit $20,000,
Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage
retroactively, refusing to pay for treatment, including surgery the insurer had
authorized in advance." [Los
Angeles Times, 9/17/06]

After Caesarean
Section, Company Told Woman She Would Be Insurable If She Had Been Sterilized. The New York Times reported on
a woman who was turned down for private health insurance because her first
child was delivered via caesarean section: "Having the operation once increases
the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed
another Caesarean, [the insurance company] did not want to pay for it. A letter
from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean,
or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying,
she might have qualified." [New
York Times, 6/1/08]

MYTH: A public option will result in Americans being forced
out of their current plans.

REBUTTAL:

It is frightening to think that the government could
force you from your current health coverage plan, especially if you are
satisfied with the service. Democrats
have directly addressed this issue and have a clause written into the
legislation ensuring that Americans currently covered by insurance policies
will not lose their coverage with the installation of health insurance reform
policies. We don't want to take anything
from you - we just want to make sure those without insurance have the ability
to provide health coverage for their families.

House Bill Allows For Continuation Of Current
Coverage. According to PolitiFact.com: "The House bill
allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who
currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage."
[PolitiFact.com, 7/22/09]

MYTH: The health care system in this country would fare
better if all Americans received a tax credit to purchase insurance on their
own.

Instead of offering a government-run public option,
Congress should provide tax credits to families so they are able to purchase
insurance on their own.

REBUTTAL:

The cost of a family's health insurance is rising
quickly - last year it had almost reached $13,000 and is on track to be nearly
$25,000 per year by 2016.

New America Foundation: Family Health
Coverage Will Be Nearly $25,000 By 2016. According to the New America
Foundation, under the current system of health care delivery in the United States,
the full cost of an employer-based health plan for a family will be $24,291 by
2016. [New America Foundation, The Cost of Doing Nothing, November 2008]

"The Total Premiums To Cover A Family Are Up To $12,680." The National Conference of State Legislatures
reported: "In 2008 the average fully insured individual faced an employee share
of $725 for 1-person coverage and a $3,354 annual share for family
coverage. The total premiums to cover a family are up to $12,680
according to the annual Kaiser/HRET survey of Employer-Sponsored Health
Benefits." [NCSL.org, accessed 1/13/09,
emphasis added]

Without Reform, Premiums Will Continue To Be
Unaffordable For Many Americans. According to a new study
released by Families USA: "In 2008, the uninsured paid an average of 37 percent
of the cost of care that they received out of their own pockets. However, they cannot usually afford to pay
the whole bill on their own, and a portion goes unpaid (this is called 'uncompensated
care'). To cover the cost of this uncompensated
care, health care providers charge higher rates when insured people receive
care, and these increases are passed on to those who have insurance in the form
of higher premiums, known as a 'hidden health tax.' In 2008, for example, this 'hidden health
tax; increased premiums for family health coverage by an average of $1,017,
and, for single individuals, by $368." [Families USA, Coverage for America: We All Stand to Gain, accessed 7/22/09,
parentheses original]

Individual Health Plans May Not Cover An Individual's Basic Needs. The Washington Post reported: "If you
have poor health, there can be a catch: Insurers can decline
to offer you a policy, exclude coverage for certain conditions or charge you
high premiums. Those with serious conditions such as HIV, cancer or diabetes,
as well as those with common conditions such as obesity, can feel the snub. 'In
the past four or five years, I've had people turned down just because of height
and weight,' says Jerry Patt, an independent agent in Gaithersburg who has been
in the business for more than 35 years. 'They could be having no medical
problems whatsoever, but their build was not acceptable.'" [Washington Post, 6/22/07,
emphasis added]

MYTH: Free-market principles should be utilized to fix
health care and Americans should be allowed to purchase insurance across state
lines.

Instead of offering a government-run public option,
Congress should allow the purchase of insurance across state lines.

REBUTTAL:

Each state has a different set of regulations and
taxes they apply to insurance companies.
If purchasing health insurance across state lines was allowed, health
insurance companies would relocate to those states with the laws best suited to
the company's profit margin and Americans would suffer.

States Vary Greatly On The Types Of Regulations Imposed Upon Insurance
Companies. Bonnie Burns,
Training and Policy Specialist for California Health Advocates, testified that "there
is inconsistent regulatory authority from one state to another over insurance
products offered for sale in each state, the premiums companies charge, and
premium increases they impose. Although the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Model Act for Long- Term Care Insurance and
Model Regulation to implement the Model Act serve as an advisory regulatory
foundation for state laws and regulation, many state legislatures change or
refuse to adopt certain provisions of those Models, if they adopt them at
all...Regulatory authority and oversight as a result may be very strong
in some states and minimal in others." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/08, emphasis added]

Americans Suffer When
Purchasing Insurance On The Individual Market

Many Americans Have Been Priced Out Of Health Care. As Ezra Klein points out on his blog: "If you
look at waiting times, you'll see that relatively few Americans wait more than
four months for surgery, which helps folks claim that America doesn't ration
care, and makes our system look pretty good on the waiting times metric. Here's
what they don't tell you: When you look at who foregoes care, the international
comparisons reverse themselves. About 23% of Americans report that they
didn't receive care, or get a test due to cost. In Canada, that number is 5.5%." [Ezra
Klein blog, The American Prospect, 12/5/08,
emphasis added]

American Families Already Faced With Cancer Diagnosis Also Have
Difficulty Paying For Health Care.
According to a Lake Research Poll: "Half (52%) of families with a person under
65 who has had a cancer diagnosis say they have had difficulty paying for
health care costs. Additionally, close to half (47%) of those currently
receiving cancer-related care has had difficulty affording care." [ACSCAN.org, 5/20/09]

Rather Than Waiting In Line, Americans Simply Do Not Get Care. As Ezra Klein argues in the Los Angeles Times,
"although Britain and Canada have decided that no one will go without, even if
some must occasionally wait, the U.S. has decided that most of us who
can't afford care simply won't get it." [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/09,
emphasis added]

Without COBRA Or Other Health Coverage, People "Are More Likely To
Forgo Needed Medical Care And Incur Medical Debt." A December 2008 report released by the Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured stated: "many workers find that after
losing a job they are not able to afford the premiums required to continue
employer-sponsored insurance through COBRA...Without insurance, these adults
are more likely to forgo needed medical care and incur medical debt. They
are also at risk of having their health problems treated as pre-existing
conditions if they later regain employer-sponsored coverage." [KFF.org,
accessed 1/14/09]

MYTH: A government option will result in health care
rationing for Americans.

Government control of health care will only lead to
delayed and denied care as some government bureaucrat makes arbitrary decisions
about personal care.

Private insurance companies ration care to Americans
every single day. They reject
applications based on pre-existing conditions and family history. They rescind coverage after an illness has
been diagnosed. Their premiums and
deductibles are so high that millions of Americans are forced to delay care or
declare bankruptcy due to high costs.

Some Insurance Companies Treat Caesarean Sections As A Pre-Existing
Condition. According to
the New York Times: "Insurers' rules on prior Caesareans vary by
company and also by state, since the states regulate insurers, said Susan
Pisano of America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some companies
ignore the surgery, she said, but others treat it like a pre-existing
condition. 'Sometimes the coverage will come with a rider saying that coverage
for a Caesarean delivery is excluded for a period of time,' Ms. Pisano said.
Sometimes, she said, applicants with prior Caesareans are charged higher
premiums or deductibles." [New
York Times, 6/1/08]

Insurers Justify Exclusion Policies, Saying "They Need These Strategies
To Protect Themselves."
The New York Times reported, "with individual coverage, insurers in
many states can vary their prices based on medical history, exclude certain
services or reject anyone they consider a bad risk...Insurers say they need
these strategies to protect themselves, because some customers apply only after
they get sick or pregnant, skewing the pool toward people with high expenses."
[New York
Times, 6/1/08]

Many Americans Have Been Priced Out Of Health
Care. As Ezra Klein points out on his blog: "If you
look at waiting times, you'll see that relatively few Americans wait more than
four months for surgery, which helps folks claim that America doesn't ration
care, and makes our system look pretty good on the waiting times metric. Here's
what they don't tell you: When you look at who foregoes care, the international
comparisons reverse themselves. About
23% of Americans report that they didn't receive care, or get a test due to
cost. In Canada,
that number is 5.5%." [Ezra Klein blog, American
Prospect, 12/5/08,
emphasis added]

American Families Already Faced With Cancer
Diagnosis Also Have Difficulty Paying For Health Care.
According to a Lake Research Poll: "Half (52%) of families with a person
under 65 who has had a cancer diagnosis say they have had difficulty paying for
health care costs. Additionally, close
to half (47%) of those currently receiving cancer-related care has had
difficulty affording care." [ACSCAN.org, 5/20/09]

Rather Than Waiting In Line, Americans Simply Do Not Get
Care.
As Ezra Klein argues in the Los Angeles
Times, "although Britain and Canada have decided that no one will go
without, even if some must occasionally wait, the U.S. has decided that most of us who can't afford care simply won't
get it." [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/09,
emphasis added]

MYTH: Increased Comparative Effectiveness Research will give
the government reasons to deny care.

REBUTTAL:

Comparative Effectiveness Research, or CER, is simply
the study of how well various treatments work for patients. CER is not a new practice; President Bush
allocated more than $300 million last year alone. Doctors and patients use the results of CER
to make every medical decision, as it is this research that helps determine
what might work best for each individual patient.

Comparative Effectiveness Research Is The
Comparison Of Medical Treatments. According to the Washington Post's Business Columnist,
Steven Pearlstein, "comparative effectiveness research" refers to "research
done by doctors and statisticians who troll through large number of patient
records to determine, for any particular disease, which treatments work best."
[Washington Post, 2/13/09]

The
Stimulus Bill Allocated $1.1 Billion For CER. According to the New York Times: "The $787
billion economic stimulus bill approved by Congress will, for the first time,
provide substantial amounts of money for the federal government to compare the
effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. Under the
legislation, researchers will receive $1.1 billion to compare drugs, medical
devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions." [The New
York Times, 2/15/09]

NIH Had A Budget Of $335 Million For
Comparative Effectiveness Research Last Year. According to the Washington Post's Business Columnist,
Steven Pearlstein, "there's nothing particularly new about comparative
effectiveness research -- the National Institutes of Health, along with the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, have been doing it for years, with
a budget last year of about $335 million." [Washington Post, 2/13/09]

CER "Would Fill Gaps In The Evidence
Available To Doctors And Patients." The New York Times reported: "For many
years, the government has regulated drugs and devices and supported biomedical
research, but the goal was usually to establish if a particular treatment was
safe and effective, not if it was better than the alternatives. Consumer
groups, labor unions, large employers and pharmacy benefit managers supported
the new initiative, saying it would fill gaps in the evidence available to
doctors and patients." [The New York Times, 2/15/09]

Applied Properly, CER Empowers Patients
To Make The Best Choices For Their Own Medical Care. In a post on U.S. News, Michelle Andrews wrote, "This
is good stuff, not only for the medical establishment but also for patients,
who are increasingly expected to play an active role in managing and paying for
their healthcare." [USNews.com, 3/23/09

Council "Will Not Recommend Clinical Guidelines." The published guidelines for the Council are
very clear about the decisions its members will make: The Federal Coordinating
Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research "will not recommend
clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment." [HHS.gov, 3/19/09,
emphasis added]

Research Must Be Conducted By
An Impartial Third Party, Such As The Government

Conducting
Research Trials Is Not Always Financially Beneficial For Private Companies. According to a
December 2007 report released by the Congressional Budget Office titled Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of
Medical Treatments: "For drug manufacturers, the costs of conducting
additional trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy for a broader set of
patients or conditions may outweigh the benefits from the increased sales that
would result; in particular, the potential gains from finding a favorable
result for a different population would have to be weighed against the risk
that safety and efficacy could not be demonstrated conclusively." [CBO.gov, 12/07]

MYTH: The government option is the first step towards a
single-payer system like Canada
and Great Britain.

REBUTTAL:

Neither of those systems is being used as a model to
reform American health care. Our
solution will be uniquely American and will ensure the continuation of the
private health insurance industry, preserving American choice and
entrepreneurship.

Health Care Reform Will Be Uniquely American. Sen.
Max Baucus, who is spearheading health care reform from the helm of the Senate
Finance Committee, said: "We are not Europe. We are not Canada...We need a uniquely American
solution. It has to be a partnership of
public and private players." [Washington Post, 5/11/09]

President Obama: "Keep The Private Sector
Honest, Because There's Some Competition Out There." During the Health Care Summit at the White House, Senator Grassley
commented to President Obama, "there's a lot of us that feel that the public
option that the government is an unfair competitor and that we're going to get
an awful lot of crowd out, and we have to keep what we have now strong, and
make it stronger." President Obama replied: "The thinking on the public option
has been that it gives consumers more
choices, and it helps give -- keep the private sector honest, because
there's some competition out there. That's been the thinking. [Health Care Summit, Transcript via
Talking Points Memo, 3/5/09]

"A Public Plan Would Provide An Essential
Option" For Americans. Harold Pollack, public health policy
researcher at the University of Chicago's School
of Social Service Administration
and faculty chair of the Center for Health Administration Studies, wrote in an
op-ed: "A public plan would provide an
essential option--and an equally essential backup--for millions of
Americans living with chronic illnesses or disabilities." [The New Republic, 3/10/09]

Sen. Baucus: The Reformed Health Care System "Will
Be A Public/Private Hybrid."American Prospect published a quote
of Senator Baucus saying: "We need health insurer reform to get rid of
preexisting conditions and other ways insurers discriminate. That's part of our
plan here, and the CEOs of many larger insurance companies are on board. They
know this change is coming. They may lose the current model but they pick up on
volume with 46 million people coming into the system...And that will be a public/private hybrid. There may come a
time when we can push for single payer. But that time is not yet, and so I'm
not going to waste my time." [American
Prospect, accessed 3/6/09]

MYTH: Government-run health care will put a bureaucrat
between you and your doctor.

I don't want some faceless Washington bureaucrat making health care
decisions for me and my family.

REBUTTAL:

The private health insurance industry bureaucrats are
standing between you and your doctor right now.
They hire outside firms to determine how much you might cost them. Private insurance companies make decisions on
who does and does not get health care based solely on how much they value your
life.

Insurance Bureaucrats Stand Between Americans
And Their Doctors. Dr. Howard Dean said on MSNBC: "Right now there is a bureaucrat between you
and your doctor, and it's that private health insurance bureaucrat." [MSNBC
transcript and video via MadvilleTimes, accessed 6/17/09]

Americans Face Denials For Coverage From
Insurance Companies Every Day. Americans are already facing the denial of
treatments from their private insurance companies, according to the Wall Street Journal. As Diane Archer,
director of the Health Care Project at Institute for America's Future recently
argued in the New York Times: "As any
doctor will tell you, when a private health insurance plan delays or denies a
physician-recommended service, it is deciding who gets care and what kind of
care people get." [Wall Street Journal,
9/25/08; New York Times, 5/8/09]

Insurance Companies Hire Agencies To "Do
Computerized Searches" Of A Person's Health Record.
According to the Miami Herald, "to make sure that applicants are
not lying, insurers hire a data-gathering service -- Medical Information
Bureau, Milliman's Intelliscript or Ingenix Medpoint. Intelliscript and
Medpoint do computerized searches of a person's drug use, gleaned from pharmacy
benefits managers and other databases." [Miami Herald, 3/28/09]

Insurers Use The Data To Deny Coverage And To
Charge Higher Premiums. According to a Business Week report, "Two-thirds of all health insurers are using
prescription data-not only to deny coverage to individuals and families but
also to charge some customers higher premiums or exclude certain medical
conditions from policies, according to agents and others in the industry." [Business Week, 7/23/08]

"Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions" Included
In Coverage After An Individual Has Gone Without Health Insurance.
According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured: "If an
individual is uninsured for 63 days or more, pre-existing condition exclusions
can be imposed by their new health plan for most health conditions for which
treatment, advice or diagnosis were received in the six months prior to
enrolling in an employer-sponsored insurance plan. Insurers can typically refuse to cover
medical care related to pre-existing conditions for up to one year." [KFF.org,
accessed 1/14/09]

Some Insurance Companies Treat Caesarean
Sections As A Pre-Existing Condition. According to the New York Times: "Insurers' rules on prior Caesareans vary by
company and also by state, since the states regulate insurers, said Susan
Pisano of America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some companies
ignore the surgery, she said, but others treat it like a pre-existing
condition. 'Sometimes the coverage will come with a rider saying that coverage
for a Caesarean delivery is excluded for a period of time,' Ms. Pisano said.
Sometimes, she said, applicants with prior Caesareans are charged higher
premiums or deductibles." [New York Times, 6/1/08]

MYTH: A government plan will create an increased bureaucracy
for Americans to contend with.

We don't need more government bureaucracy that will
turn a visit to the doctor's office into a visit to the DMV.

REBUTTAL:

Are you satisfied with the current insurance company
bureaucracy? Currently, insurance
company bureaucracies extend outside their walls as they pay other firms to
investigate your past to determine how much you might cost them. And if it's too much, they deny your
coverage. And even if they offer you
coverage and you pay your dues in full and on time, if you get sick they will
have one of their employees find any simple mistake on your application in
order to rescind your coverage.

With increased government involvement in the health
insurance delivery system, these things just won't happen.

Major Insurance Companies Pay For Access To
Private Medical Information. According to a Business Week report: "Most consumers and even many insurance
agents are unaware that Humana, UnitedHealth Group, Aetna (AET), Blue Cross
plans, and other insurance giants have ready access to applicants' prescription
histories. These online reports, available in seconds from a pair of
little-known intermediary companies at a cost of only about $15 per search, typically
include voluminous information going back five years on dosage, refills, and
possible medical conditions. The
reports also provide a numerical score predicting what a person may cost an
insurer in the future." [Business
Week, 7/23/08,
emphasis added]

Insurance Companies Hire Agencies To "Do
Computerized Searches" Of A Person's Health Record.
According to the Miami Herald,
"to make sure that applicants are not lying, insurers hire a data-gathering
service -- Medical Information Bureau, Milliman's Intelliscript or Ingenix
Medpoint. Intelliscript and Medpoint do computerized searches of a person's
drug use, gleaned from pharmacy benefits managers and other databases." [Miami Herald, 3/28/09]

Insurers Use The Data To Deny Coverage And To
Charge Higher Premiums. According to a Business Week report: "Two-thirds of all health insurers are using
prescription data-not only to deny coverage to individuals and families but
also to charge some customers higher premiums or exclude certain medical
conditions from policies, according to agents and others in the industry. Some
carriers are also using the data to charge small employers higher group rates."
[Business Week, 7/23/08]

Insurers Justify Exclusion Policies, Saying "They
Need These Strategies To Protect Themselves." The New York Times reported, "with individual coverage, insurers in
many states can vary their prices based on medical history, exclude certain
services or reject anyone they consider a bad risk...Insurers say they need these
strategies to protect themselves, because some customers apply only after they
get sick or pregnant, skewing the pool toward people with high expenses." [New York Times, 6/1/08]

MYTH: A government option will force private
insurance companies out of business.

REBUTTAL:

The introduction of more competition in the health insurance
market will not put private companies out of business - it will force them, in
true free-market style, to meet the demands of consumers and to start providing
quality coverage to all Americans.

Currently, There Is A Severe
Lack Of Competition Among Insurance Providers

Only A Few Insurance Companies Dominate The Market, Leaving Americans
With Limited Choices In Health Care. According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of United
States health care markets are considered highly concentrated, meaning that one
company or a small group of companies control a great deal of the market.
[American Medical Association, "Competition in Health Insurance," 2008 Update]

New York Times: Fears Of A Public Plan Putting Private Plans Out Of
Business Are "Overblown." According
to the New York Times: "What many critics seem to fear most is that a
new public plan would sweep away its private competitors and evolve over time
into a full-fledged single-payer system (sometimes called Medicare for all). No
matter how fair the competition between public and private plans might be at
the start, they warn that the government would find it irresistible to rig the
outcome through its regulatory and pricing powers and its ability, in a pinch,
to subsidize the public plan with taxpayers' money. That fear seems
overblown. Innovative, nimble private plans with well-integrated service
systems might outperform any government plan, just as some now outperform
Medicare through better coordination of services, stronger preventive care and
broader benefits. A new public plan is neither the cornerstone of
health care reform nor the death knell of private insurance. It should be tried
as one element of comprehensive reform." [New York Times, 4/6/09;
emphasis added]

Senate Democrats
Have Proposed That Public Health Care Should "Comply With All The Rules And
Standards That Apply To Private Insurance" To Ensure That Private Insurance Can
Compete. According to
the New York Times: "In an effort to defuse the most explosive issue in
the debate over comprehensive health care legislation, a top Senate Democrat
has proposed that any new government-run insurance program comply with all the
rules and standards that apply to private insurance. The proposal was made
Monday by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New
York, the third-ranking member of the Senate
Democratic leadership, in a bid to address fears that a public program would
drive private insurers from the market." [New York Times, 5/5/09]

House Democrats
Are Committed To A Public Health Care Option Which Will "Spur Competition
Within The Insurance Industry." The Hill reported: "[Majority
Leader] Hoyer indicated that House Democrats are committed to including a
public plan option in their bill. 'We believe that a public option clearly is
going to be necessary' to provide consumers with an alternative to private
insurance and to spur competition within the insurance industry, Hoyer said." [The
Hill, 3/26/09]

Speaker
Pelosi Is Looking For A Public Option To Make Private Insurers More
Competitive. According to Bloomberg:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House this year will consider health-care
legislation including an option for a government-run program that would compete
with insurers. 'This is a big agenda, and I believe it should have a public
option in it for it to be really substantial,' Pelosi told reporters at her
weekly news conference in the U.S. Capitol. Pelosi said the
Democratic-controlled House will be 'aggressive' in its approach to a
health-care overhaul, which is a centerpiece of Obama's agenda. She said a
government role in health care will help U.S. companies be more competitive."
[Bloomberg, 3/26/09]

MYTH: The stimulus package failed, so what reason is there
to believe health care reform won't fail too?

REBUTTAL:

The stimulus package was meant to take effect over two
years.

The effects of the stimulus will take place over the
next two years. Just as the economy didn't
get to this point in a few months, we can't expect the solution to take hold in
such a short amount of time. The analogy
the president uses is true: the economy - and health care - is a cruise ship,
not a speed boat; it takes some time for the boat to change direction after the
captain has turned the steering wheel.

Obama Warned: "This
Is A Big Problem, And It's Going To Get Worse." Before taking office, President-elect Obama
told the country, "When you think about the structural problems that we already
had in the economy before the financial crisis, this is a big problem, and it's
going to get worse... Things are going to get worse before they get better."
[ABC News, 12/7/08]

Obama: "There Are
No Quick Fixes." At a
news conference on March 24, 2009, President Obama said: "It's important to
remember that this crisis didn't happen overnight, and it didn't result from
any one action or decision. It took many years and many failures to lead us
here, and it will take many months and many different solutions to lead us
out. There are no quick fixes, and there are no silver bullets."
[Presidential News Conference, 3/24/09]

Krugman: Claims
That The Stimulus Has Failed Are "Insane." Writing on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning
economist Paul Krugman called claims that the stimulus has failed "insane"
because "hardly any of the money has flowed to the economy yet." [New York Times,
6/25/09]

MYTH: An employer mandate will hurt small businesses.

Changing the current system has the potential to
destroy small American businesses - especially if Congress enacts an employer
mandate.

REBUTTAL:

Recently, the two Senate Committees currently working
on the health care bill removed the mandate for employers to provide health
insurance coverage to their employees.
And the House bill has specific provisions to exclude very small
businesses from the mandate as well as providing a simple description for what
would occur if the employer did not provide health coverage. Congress wants to do everything it can to
support American businesses, while at the same time ensuring all Americans have
access to quality health care.

Study: 10% Increase In Health Care Costs
Result In Loss Of More Than 120,000 American Jobs. According to Business Week, "the study estimated that a 10% increase in excess
health care costs would reduce employment by about 0.24 percent in the motor
vehicles industry, where 80% of workers are covered by employers. The retail
industry, however, where only one third of workers are covered, saw only a
0.13% percent drop in employment. Economy-wide, a 10% increase in excess health
care costs growth would result in about 120,800 fewer jobs, $28 billion in lost
revenues, and $14 billion in lost GDP value." [Business Week, 7/23/09]

"Administrative Costs Make It Inefficient For
Insurers To Sell Coverage To Small Employers." Dr.
Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute gave the following testimony to the House
Committee on Small Business: "Fixed administrative costs make it inefficient
for insurers to sell coverage to small employers. The per-person price of
buying insurance for a small group of individuals will always be higher than
buying those same benefits for a large group." [Urban Institute, 9/18/08]

Small Businesses "Are Especially Vulnerable
To The Weaknesses" Of The Health Care System. According to National
Federation of Independent Business, "our current system of health insurance and
health care is financially unsustainable and threatens the health and financial
security of the American people. Small business owners and their employees are
especially vulnerable to the weaknesses of our current system." [NFIB.com,
accessed 3/18/09]

Small-Business Owners Cut Health Coverage To
Cut Operation Costs. According to the New York Times, "even before the recession, owners of the smallest
businesses had struggled to absorb the inexorable annual rise in health
premiums. The share of firms with fewer than 10 workers that offer health benefits
has declined by 16 percent since 2001, to 49 percent, according to an annual
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational
Trust, while the rate in larger firms essentially stayed flat. The economic
downturn has only accelerated the pressure on small-business owners to pinch
every penny, and many feel they have few options but to go after employee
health coverage." [New York Times, 2/2/09]

Small-Business Owners Face Difficult Decision
Of Cutting Benefits For Workers That Are Like Family.
According to the New York Times,
"for many small-business owners, it can be excruciating to reduce or eliminate
benefits for employees who have long been treated as family and who continue to
work at their sides, every day." [New York Times, 2/2/09]

MYTH: Democrats in Congress keep trumpeting the benefits of a
public option, but refuse to accept the plan for themselves and their families.

Many opponents of health care reform assert that
members of Congress should enroll in the public option they are forcing down America's
throat - even citing a House Ways
& Means amendment to that effect that was defeated in committee.

REBUTTAL:

Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma introduced a sarcastic amendment
requiring members of Congress to enroll in the public option - and the
Democrats passed it! Democrats are not
against enrolling in the option they make available to the American
public. We're all in this together.

Senate HELP Committee Passed Amendment
To "Require Members Of Congress To Enroll In The Government-Run Public Plan." According to Congressional Quarterly, "the panel
adopted by 12-11 an amendment by Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that would require
members of Congress to enroll in the government-run public plan created by the
legislation. 'We should take the lead, sacrifice and demonstrate our faith on
how good we think this will be, Coburn said." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/09,
subscription required]

Government-Administered Medicare Is Actually More Efficient Than
Private Insurance. The Council
for Affordable Health Insurance, "a research and advocacy association of
insurance carriers," published a report stating: "Administrative costs are
lower under Medicare than for private health insurance." The report added, "our
best estimates indicate Medicare at slightly above 5% of total Medicare cost in
2003, whereas the government currently reports about 2%... The private market
administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private
insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit. With such
items, private costs would be slightly under 17%." [CAHI, Medicare versus
Private Health Insurace: The Cost of Administration, 1/6/06]